Thomas v. Board of Trustees
296 Neb. 726
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Peru State College (PSC) students Tyler Thomas (freshman) and Joshua Keadle (older student) lived in adjacent dorm rooms; Thomas disappeared December 3, 2010 and was later declared dead.
- Plaintiffs (Thomas’s parents and estate) alleged Keadle abducted, raped, and murdered Thomas; they sued the Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges under the State Tort Claims Act for negligence in failing to protect Thomas.
- Relevant pre-incident facts: Keadle had problematic campus conduct (three PSC code-of-conduct matters, one involving alleged sexual misconduct where sanctions were imposed but not completed), prior criminal history disclosed to some staff, and PSC removed him from volunteer athletic duties after a background issue.
- The district court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment, finding (1) the Board did not owe a duty because the harm occurred off campus and (2) in any event plaintiffs failed to show the alleged violent crime was foreseeable; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held the Board did owe a duty of reasonable care to students but affirmed summary judgment because the alleged abduction/rape/murder was not a foreseeable risk as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board owed a legal duty to protect a student | Board owed duty to exercise reasonable care to students; liability arises from failure to prevent foreseeable harm | Board argued no duty (district court) or, alternatively, no breach because harm was unforeseeable | Court: Board does owe a duty of reasonable care to students, but summary judgment for Board affirmed on foreseeability (no breach) |
| Whether facts created a triable issue that Keadle’s alleged violence was foreseeable | Prior conduct, complaints, background information, and failure to enforce sanctions made violent assault foreseeable | The recorded misconduct and prior history did not directly indicate a risk of abduction/rape/murder; risk of that violent outcome was not reasonably foreseeable | Held: As a matter of law no reasonable factfinder could find the specific violent crime foreseeable; summary judgment proper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the evidence/admissibility disputes | Plaintiffs argued there was sufficient admissible evidence to create a factual dispute on foreseeability | Board relied on admissible record and argued plaintiffs’ evidence (some hearsay) was insufficient to show foreseeability | Held: Court viewed evidence in plaintiffs’ favor but concluded even assuming admissibility, no material factual dispute on foreseeability exists |
| Standard for resolving foreseeability on summary judgment | Plaintiffs urged foreseeability is fact question for jury here | Board urged that foreseeability can be decided as a matter of law where no reasonable persons could differ | Held: Foreseeability is generally a fact question, but where reasonable persons could not differ, a court may decide as a matter of law; here court did so in favor of Board |
Key Cases Cited
- A.W. v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010) (adopted Restatement (Third) duty analysis; schools owe duty of reasonable care)
- Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569 (2016) (foreseeability assessed from what defendants knew and when; generally a fact question)
- Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348 (2015) (foreseeability is fact-specific but may be decided as matter of law when reasonable persons could not differ)
- Cisneros v. Graham, 294 Neb. 83 (2016) (summary judgment standards; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Bixenmann v. Dickinson Land Surveyors, 294 Neb. 407 (2016) (summary judgment review principles)
- Ashby v. State, 279 Neb. 509 (2010) (elements required for negligence under State Tort Claims Act)
- Doe v. Gunny’s Ltd. Partnership, 256 Neb. 653 (1999) (law does not require precision in foreseeing exact hazard; suffices that consequence is of a kind reasonably foreseeable)